standard profiles and additional profiles [was: Re: some things to do...]

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Dec 2 07:07:52 PST 2004


Daniel Baumann wrote:

> but another question comes up: you remember the arguments last time 
> when we talked about integration of '-j' into the profiles?
>
> http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/alfs-discuss/2004-January/004410.html 
>
> http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/alfs-discuss/2004-January/004412.html 
>
> http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/alfs-discuss/2004-January/004414.html 
>
>
> what i want to say: is it your decision to integrate all the 
> 'additional' feautures into the one-and-only-official lfs-profile?
>
> if so, i would be unhappy. i personally would prefere to have a 
> standard, strictly just lfs-bare-build-profile (vanilla) which is the 
> original-stable-recommendet profile and for advaced users, to have 
> (maybe several) profiles which have the one or the other additional 
> feature, and, for those who can't get enough, maybe also one with all 
> the feautures.

But it still works that way, (as vanilla), the options I put in there 
are off by default. For all I care, you can even comment them out. But 
having them helps greatly the work of myself and several others without 
having to maintain many other profiles, which soon becomes tiresome and 
time consuming.  Kevin makes some good points in those threads, however 
if we want more of the LFS community to find ALFS useful, supporting 
often used features like this (so that they don't have to do a lot of 
editing) would greatly help.

> reasons for that:
>
> . additional profiles can be mainly maintained/developed by one person 
> each, and can be easily synced with the standard-profile
> . additional features doesn't 'slow' down the development process of 
> the standard-profile/nalfs, otherwise you 'always' have to wait for a 
> release to get all the stuff ready
>
By doing that, the likelihood of having a lot of out-dated profiles 
greatly increases. Instead, hopefully, we can have one, all-purpose, 
up-to-date profile.

> so i suggest the following:
>
> . create one official lfs-profile just according to the lfs-book as we 
> did before.
> . create one ore more additional profiles with additional features, 
> these ones comes in my mind atm: parallelcompiling, crosscompiling, 
> distributedcompiling.
>
Current nALFS is in maintenance mode, and there may come a day soon when 
profiles for it are no longer needed either. I'd rather not spend a lot 
of time now creating and maintaining many specific profiles/variations 
on the same theme.

--
Jeremy Huntwork



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list